Have you joined the FSC? If not, why not?
 

With all that's going on in our biz these days...thought I'd post a poll and get some feedback from my fellow webmasters :)

Geez, these are trying times...has had me a bit...errrr...edgy lately :(

Anyway, the point of this poll is to see how many folks have joined the Free Speech Coalition. I've seen comments on several boards of folks complaining about the lack of a cohesive voice for the adult community. There's been mention of a union or some sort of a trade organization. Someone...ANYONE to speak on our behalf. To lobby for us in Washington...so hopefully shit like what's happening now gets stopped BEFORE it gets to the point of the current situation.

In reading the information I got from the FSC today...that's exactly their plan. I quote, "FSC will hire a federal lobbyist to monitor Washington activities and advocate for your free speech rights".

I assume everyone knows the FSC was founded for that very purpose...to be the voice of the adult entertainment industry. Take a look at their mission statement on their website.

One last thing...I know this may feel a bit like a membership drive. I've read a few of those posts...I was reticent at first too...for the same reason. But, after reading the FSC website and realizing that we already have a voice to advocate for us...I sent my membership fees in gladly :)

Jim & I jointly joined & based the amount on the income from the board (which changed about 2 days after we joined)

It is a good thing, but I get this feeling that unless you live near them where you can go to conferences & meetings & whatnot, you don't get the full benefit of it (the members area is nothing special & their board has 1 member)

And I do sorta wish they'd stop hitting me up to sponsor golf outings & whatnot :D

Not that I do not want to support it or you American guys as 99% of my friends online are American I have not joined because I live in Canada. Will I? Maybe...

I won't join, but I AM a free loading cocksucker. Plus, as Mr. Yum already knows, I can't take any organzation seriously that doesn't hand out free t-shirts or give away passes to theme parks or something. If they were the Free Tshirt Coalition, well I'd already be a member.

|waves| Fuck free speech.

Can you actually join online now?

When I first visited, I donated money, but I couldn't see a way to actually join online.

I'm getting mail and emails from them, so my donating money did some good.

I confess, I'd immediately join online, if they could take the join.

But right after giving my first donation I started reading about how their processor wasn't working, about how it was impossible to join, etc, etc.

Is everybody who is joining is sending in the fax thing? Very '80s.

Seriously, I'd give them a big chunk in the next few minutes if they could take my join online.

BTW, what do you guys figure - deductible, because it's a professional organization, or nondeductible, because it's a political contribution?

I'm thinking deductible.

Nah you cant join online, not that I saw, we called them, they faxed us the paperwork needed and we faxed it back.

Extreme Paychecks is lovin the FSC ;)

I am also in Canada and I have thought about joining but something just keeps stopping me. Not sure what thought... so I don't know if I ever will.

I'm in Australia but I'd like to join as an individual to support what they're doing.

Haven't joined as yet because their online signup form isn't working.

Geez, I did a post a poll and run thang :D

Very busy day...preparing just in case...but still building too...biz as usual...so far...

Yep, their website sign up is down...something about needing to get a new processor...and they had no projected date when that would happen. So for those that do want to join, looks like telephone or fax is the only way to go.

So far, I haven't had much trouble contacting them on the phone :)

Bill, I would think probably not deductible as it's more of a political organization than a professional organization. I could be wrong though...some accountants can get pretty creative :D

UW, yea I DO know how you like your t-shirts and caps :D

Wow...in looking at the ol poll on the wall...looks like more have not and don't plan to than those that have or do plan to.

Any of the 'nays' care to elaborate as to why?

Purely a money thing?

Or, just don't think it's worth it?

I was one of those horribly negative votes, partially because I'm a dick and partially because I'm painfully honest. I definately believe that the FSC is a great investment, but I can't afford to throw cash at anything, especially considering I have based my entire business model around the use sponsor content and a great many of my sponsors are busy ramming cease & desist orders up my ass because they all seem to have been using content that even they can't get documentation for, let alone providing it to their dutiful affiliates. In other words, my limited sales are about to take a monster fucking leap into the worst toilet in Scotland (Trainspotting).

Jim said he was going to donate $1 to the Human Fund (Seinfeld) in my name.

I know the feeling UW...

While I've never used much sponsor content (a bit but not much)...a LOT of the paid content will have to go IF these regs go through. A few hundred free sites worth...thousands of dollars worth of content :( Yep, tried to contact the producer...yup, he's MIA...fucker |angry|

A bunch more content was purchased from producers in the EU...I've got some docs, but whether or not they meet the new standards is another story. One in particular that isn't responding to messages is very surprising...given that he's a well respected member of our community.

So yea, IF these regs are enforced...I'll lose several thousand dollars worth of content |angry|

All that said, and I KNOW there are those on this board that think I'm fuckin nuts...I'm still cautiously optimistic that these regs will never be enforced. They're SO far out there in left field...that I think the injunctions will be granted. And the DOJ will be told to fucking start over...just mho :)

Which is why it's biz as usual for now...just finishing up a bunch of new free sites actually...and yes, some of em are explicit :D

I have not joined and this is why:

It is not necassry.

But for anyone who has joined good for you!

I have never joined an organization based on what they claim to plan to do, and I'm not going to start now.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Answer me these and make your replies...

FSC will never get my money, sorry.

a) They still do not have an online registration method in place. This takes at most one day for a credible 501(c)6 organization to make happen.

b) Their pricing rates for "webmasters" and "mere performers" flip-flopped 180 degrees the very same day that they announced they would be filing an injunction.

c) If you take the time to read their own history you'll notice that since 1991 they have only done one (1) thing in the judicial process to effect any action, and that was in 2002 in an open and shut case.

d) Those of you who have paid attention will also note that in early 2003 the FSC *fired* the only person in their directorate, the First and Only Valid Executive Director, that had *any* clout in Washington. He was dismissed and replaced by puppets. And to this day, every executive of the FSC is merely a puppet.

e) They openly admit that they currently have ZERO lobbyists in Washington. They state that they will be hiring "A" lobbyist in the near future.

f) They have claimed that their injunction, that so far is merely smoke and mirrors with no backup - unless it sprouted legs over night, will ONLY protect FSC members. My learned legal brain says bullshit - ALL PARTIES involved in an injunction are affected, and in this case the DOJ is a named party. Meaning that while said injunction is being reviewed, etc. the DOJ's hands are tied firmly from any action on this "clarification" to existing law.

g) The FSC wants "webmasters", yes the "middle class" of the Adult Industry to foot the entire bill. $300 to sign up for a so far ineffectual "trade organization".
They are insane.

The AOPA - the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association only charges $39.95 per year to its members. And this Trade Organization provides legal advice, health and life insurance benefits, actual lobbyists (several), industry experts from Aviation, Legal, Medical, Forensics and several other fields - that *actively* work within the NTSB, the FAA and the various International Aviation governing bodies.
And! When you join you get a cool hat AND a subscription to their periodical AND a chance to win a $400,000 plane! For $39.95 per year.
FSC wants me to pay $300 per year? Why? What have they done for me today? Or yesterday?
Why did they swing their rates from $50 per webmaster to $300 per webmaster on the eve of 2257? I for one, will never succumb to extortion.

By the way folks ... FSC is NOT a fully qualified Not-For-Profit corporation. After 14 years they are still 501(c)6 - meaning that your contributions are NOT charitable or otherwise deductible outside of normal business deductions. They need, and by gods *should* have been able to gain a higher classification in 14 years which would have made them tax deductable. But, they have continued to operate as lobbying organization WITHOUT ANYONE LOBBYING!

As one wise man once said ... Follow The Money.

venturi - I was wondering if anyone else noticed that quick increase in fees :)

One interesting point that you brought up - the people on the board now - correct me if Im wrong, but didnt they just bring in people from AVN?

I suppose I should have qualified that statement - I know who is on the board of directors - and it is a diverse group ranging from Joan from ASACP to Mark K from AVN and a bunch of others and the exec director - hmmm I remember something a long time ago:
http://www.lukeford.com/archives/updates/000730.htm

I think this is because the sponsor doesn't want to give out the model's personal info OR they aren't allowed to by the content provider OR the content provider isn't producing the proper documents.

I don't think that any sponsor is just yanking content for shits & giggles.

Coming soon, new Goatse content featuring Useless Warrior

That's pretty much what I said.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's one of 3 things & not just that they can't get the docs needed - I'm sure a lot of them will be 100% compliant within their inner workings, but they will choose to not release model ID's because of the potential stalker problem.

I would join the FSC but the membership is a little steep for me this month, especially because of me picking up $1k in content. If the membership was $50 I would join today, but they're under this impression that all webmasters can drop that kind of money without blinking. I'll consider joining next month though.

As for sponsors and content...A lot of my sponsors are making an effort to supply the needed info. Some are having issues though with content providers, who give this model info away for $5 on their content site, suddenly pretending like they care about model security. :D

FSC has priced themselves out of the market, and more importantly, they have yet to establish a real track record for doing the things that webmasters truly need.

They talk a good game, but I am not 100% comfortable with how things have turned in the last couple of years. The wholesale changes made within the organization seemed most oriented towards getting marketshare and little to do with actually getting to the end of things.

Further, I am not comfortable with a "webmaster organization" that will look to get an injunction against the new 257, but restrict that injunction to it's own members only. If they were working for the webmaster community as a whole, they would ask for an injunction for "all adult industry workers and corporations". Instead, they are using it as some soft of leverage to increase memberships.

I am not comfortable. When I am not comfortable, I am not spending.

Alex

a) they had online registration and had problems with it and are working to fix it and if they were really hell bent on stealing your money they would have fixed it already, they have bigger fish to fry right now (not to mention they were scammed out of a lare amount of money on their website, yet nodody in the industry offered to help them at all with designs, biling etc.)

b) you are right, but few webmasters have ever shown support for them, and everybody was running for protection once the revised regs came out... kind of like well now that we think you are worth something to me I will join up

c) the case they won was similar to the current 2257 fiasco in that it wasn't meant to protect children at all, it was government censorship, and if they hadn't fought it then a lot of teen content would be illegal to use today (and it was hardly "an open and shut case")

d) shit happens and so do dis-agreements... so who do you suggest is controlling the "puppets"?

e) it costs a lot of fucking money to lobby in washington... the FSC doesn't exactly have the money that the lobbyists like the tobaco and gun industry do, and they don't have millions of people stopping by every sunday to give their hard earned money away like the religious factions that give tons of money and have powerful voices in politics do...

f) i won't claim to know the answer to who the injunction will cover and i won't speculate either, i've heard arguments both ways with no overwhelming winner... i hope that they are not saying it to get more members as that would be a black eye for them

g) where else do you suggest they get their money? again the FSC doesn't exactly have the money that the lobbyists like the tobaco and gun industry do, and they don't have millions of people stopping by every sunday to give their hard earned money away like the religious factions that give tons of money and have powerful voices in politics do...

AOPA- i don't give two shits about airplanes and it has no bearing on anything (apples to oranges) and their membership base is probably huge compared to the FSC and i'm sure there are some rather rich airplane owners making contributions not to mention the airline industry.... they might have UW convinced with the free hat though I hear he only goes for t-shirts

EXTORTION? you are accusing them of stealing money then? that is a big accusation and also bullshit, if you can't afford it or don't want to pay it then don't join, but extortion is ridiculous IMO

contibutions when becoming a member of the ACLU are also not tax deductible, are they bad also?

by the way join the ACLU if you haven't done so

and they do have lobbyists, just not on the national level as of yet and seeing as they haven't had huge amounts of support over the years I can understand why (lack of funds)

not to mention that not one other orginaization has been vocal in saying that they will do anything to shoot down the regulations... if the FSC is so bad what are our other options? if you have some please let me know as lining up to try and comply just doesn't feel right to me

If they priced based on being more inclusive they would do better. Example:

100 people join at $300 they make = $30,000

1000 People Join at $50 they make = $50,000

They also then have an organization of people and not just a select handful. The more people you have the better, as they can actively spread the word to other webmasters, actively push an agenda. If the FSC really started showing signs of pushing our industry ahead...I'm sure most TGP owners, Most LL owners, could help push the FSC as an almost quasi-union for the adult industry.

It's just a thought thought though, but I know I would drop $50 today if that was the membership and not blink in doing so.

$50-a pretty good deal

$300-kind of a pricey upgrade

going to jail for up to 5 years for doing nothing wrong-PRICELESS

believe it or not it takes money to fight with the gov't and we are the only ones who are going to give the FSC any money... there is no public outcry to protect porn, the public doesn't even know what is going on, and when you explain it to them there reply is "that is just stupid"

You missed the point. You can have more money if you reduce the price and have more members. Maybe you can have different pricing for sponsors, etc, and reg. webmasters, I don't know, but honestly the FSC is missing out on not being more inclusive in their pricing. Let me explain:

1. DOJ is going to go after whom? Most likely they'll pick a few easy targets, maybe small webmasters that didn't take the time or money to get compliant. Win a few cases, get some precedents, bolstering up the DOJ’s 2257 regs with some court wins...makes it a little more difficult for everyone.

2. More members, bigger base, more general support in all areas. Let’s face it, there is power in numbers.

Also, I have no intention of going to jail...I'm going to be fully compliant by the time this occurs...which is something the FSC recommends to do…unfortunately that also takes a good deal of money and time. So, you can make it like every webmaster has $300 that they can just drop for a membership, but most don’t. Sorry to break the myth that all adult webmasters are rich and that $300 is just a drop in the bucket :D

I still might buy a membership, but with the other expenses I had getting 2257 compliant...well, you know how it goes.

I get your point and I really don't know why the fees were upped, I'm not arguing with you and $300 for me isn't chump change.... my post wasn't directed at you at all, more along the lines of thinking out loud

if people can't afford it I understand that 100% but people completely bashing the FSC I just can't understand... if they had come out and said "we are going to protect every single webmaster with our injunction" and then they can't in the end do it they would be made to look like the biggest bunch of assholes this business has ever seen

i'm not compliant and that is a personal choice... i'm a single guy with no family/kids that will get dragged into the mess if something does happen to me... others have a lot more at stake and if i were in their shoes i might take a different approach to things

Lets get one thing out in the open here right now - I keep hearing this $300 number spouted - the part that is left out is that that is Per Website that you own - in my case - I couldnt come close to affording that much as I own over 400 websites - doesnt make any sense to me - but I guess I could always shut down 399 of them and pay $300 for one of them.

More importantly - how in the world does anyone if their right mind get any feeling of security that because they gave this organization $300 they will never go to jail over a 2257 infraction - that is just plain pipe-dreams - I dont care how many lawsuits get filed on behalf of their membership - until its litigated - which on average takes a year or so when up against the DOJ - they have plenty of time to keep people in jail.

Oh yeah I forgot - the injunction - thats the ticket - you just keep depending on that and dont take any personal actions to fix/repair your own sites - that'll work!

As for the FSC getting scammed on their website or whatever, let me just say that you would think that a webmaster organization would do a better job of being it's own webmaster. Admitting to being unable to control a single subcontractors really maked me wonder about all the rest.

I agree that at $50 I would like to be a member (I donate that much at shows typically). Something like this shoudl be INCLUSIVE. It should have as many members as possible. The $300 membership makes me think of the $300 signup fee for the miami show. It's amazing to think that some of the same people are involved in both.

Go figure!

Alex

I guess I should have included a reference to the $300 per website:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/c...ypes=Corporate

look at the bottom of the app where it lists Dance Clubs, Retail/Rental Stores, Websites

that is an interesting point Linkster, I guess they think that everybody that is incorporated is rich :(


and let me clarify I do not agree with the price bump and am not sure why it was done, and i don't feel secure in anyway by giving them money, i just feel strongly that we are all being grouped in as criminals and i don't like it (not that anybody does)

and Alex they aren't just an adult webmaster orginization, in fact i never heard of one webmaster mention them before the 2257 regs came out, maybe that is one of the problems and the reason why they didn't have a webmaster option before on the signup page and the reason for the price increase, although the increase still doesn't make any sense why should webmasters pay more than talent? the increase bothers me too dammit |angry|

Well, I didn't know it was $300 per site. I own 10 domains and plan on getting another 10 soon...no way could I afford $6000...so forget that completely.

Also, you make the point I was making...right now webmasters should get compliant. This is not easy for many webmasters financially at the moment as there's quite a few groups already sucking the marrow out of the little to mid-sized webmasters. Every smaller to mid-sized adult webmaster should get 100% complaint...lets face it, most of us couldn't financially deal with the DOJ coming after us. Legal fees, lost work time, etc, would bury the mid-sized webmaster.

Nice...some good points all around :)

Well reasoned responses Kinky...and thanks for the ACLU link...I'd been meaning to join...now I have :D

Venturi...I'm sure some of your concerns are warranted. And it looks like the Kinkster gave you some well thought responses.

I'm gonna keep it much more simple...

I don't really care what the FSC did or didn't do in the past. What I DO care about is what they are doing NOW. And what are they going to do in the future.

They say that an injunction will be filed...they say that a lobbyist will be hired to look out for our interests. Whether or not these things will come to fruition and benefit us...only time will tell.

And yea, $300 is a bit steep...but we all make money in this biz. If it costs me $300/year to have someone looking out for my right to do business...so be it. If the FSC is of no benefit...IF these regs move forward...ok, I'm out $300. Seems a reasonable price to pay to at least ATTEMPT to stop this crap before enforcement.

Oh, I did call an good attorney. He had one of his associates return my call. After a brief phone conversation, he informed me that a $5k retainer would be needed IF I wanted to be able to call them for legal assistance if/when needed.

Personally, I'd rather take a proactive approach to this thing (almost too fuckin late for that now)...and stop this crap before it's enforced. Right now, looks like the FSC is the only game in town that I see stepping up to the plate.

WOW! Don't know what's up with that Linkster! I'd never seen that page.

When I called them...told them I was an adult webmaster...they collected the $300.

Dunno...maybe that's for paysite owners???

kinky - so far I havent seen one reference to anyone as criminals or WMs being grouped that way - except by the organizations that will profit from this

And having been through this type of stuff so many times before in this industry you would think that everyone would remember - of course this time there is a big difference - there's more people trying to make a buck off of scaring the shit out of people - because theyve figured out that the small people in this biz dont spend very much time informing themselves - and can be swayed by public opinions on industry message boards and newsletters/news websites.

Now - as far as the underlying reason for the change to the rule - and the effect it has on the statute - I think some of us have differing opinions on its coverage and interpretations of what will really happen. I happen to be one of those that thinks that very little will change except for those large content producers as far as how often they get inspected, and that the rest of this rule will be used when its needed in actual prosecution of cp cases like what happened yesterday with all the joint raids between the US and European and Russian authorities shutting down hundreds of WMs doing the CP thing.
And I applaud anything the DOJ does constructively to get rid of CP - as a matter of fact Joan I. will tell you I was one of the first "free site" WMs that joined her campaign a few years ago when ASACP was trying to build itself up - and have not only supported them financially but with reports of sites to be turned over to the justice dept for investigation and I still do send reports every time I see it.

Im gonna get off my soapbox - but I think that cooler heads and real information instead of hot-headed "advertising headlines" would be the way to handle these types of situations as they always work out for themselves with the help of a strong community

BTW - if youre interested in what been happening worldwide in the last two days with CP - heres some good accounts:

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/06/14/fbiporn.shtml

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8785095

it is for corporations like the big sponsors... problem is that some people are incorporated but aren't able to afford that

I am just guessing here - but I think the adult WM is for someone employed in a company to do webpage maintenance - wheras someone that runs a website of their own would have to do a per website membership

When you called did you happen to mention that you owned any websites? :)

Well, actually I am a corporation...

As I recall from the phone conversation, I told them that I was an adult webmaster with lots of free sites over many domains.

Just looked at the letter they sent me...and it's addressed to me with my corporate entity named directly below my name. They obviously know I'm a corporation...

Linkster... I sure hope you're right about just how these regs will be utilized. I'd be a lot more comfortable with your view if it weren't for the secondary producer provisions.

Last time I said anything negative about the FSC, I got enough flames to warrant buying an asbestos jumpsuit. So let me put it on before I continue...

Reason's I don't trust the FSC:

1. The FSC has been saying for a YEAR that the moment the Justice Dept released the new records, they would file an injunction. NOW they said they had to study it and prepare. As of 6/7/05 they said they would file in ten days.

Bullshit. The regs didn't change enough to warrant all the extra time. That smells like a lazy lawyer who waited for the last minute to do the work. Or perhaps it is a blatant attempt to muscle people for the very high price of membership. Because:

2. The FSC has misled (dare I say lied) to the webmaster community about filing ONLY for members. There is no legal precedent (that I can find) for such a thing. An injunction would cover everyone according to my research. I NEVER TRUST a LAWYER WHO LIES TO CLIENTS. The only reason for a lawyer to lie is to hustle more cash out of you.

3. The FSC has pretty much zero clout in Washington and a limited record of doing anything. But they want everyone to pay $300 PER SITE to make them instant Washington players. Show me a track record before I dish out $1800 on an unproven pony.

4. The FSC has had their online credit card interface down for OVER TWO WEEKS. Again...a lazy lawyer. If they had bothered to ask, countless webmasters would have setup their interface for a comp'ed membership.

If the problems are realy with not having a good cc proccesor, why not? I got a merchant account and I am a nobody. Perhaps the merchant account companies have a good reason for not issuing them an account?

5. The FSC charges $300 per site. If the orginization had ANY concept of how the adult industry works, they would have designed a purchase program for owners of multiple sites or at least offered a bulk discount. There are plenty of adult webmasters making a little extra income with multiple sites. No way can they afford to pay for them all on short notice.

I don't trust a lawyer who doesn't understand the business I am in to defend me in court against the government.

So to sum up:

The lawyer(s) seem lazy.

The lawyers(s) seem uninformed on the business.

The lawyers(s) have close to ZERO pull with lawmakers.

The lawyers(s) lied about basic legal practices (injunction only for members).

The lawyer(s) want to represent webmasters but can't find a good one for their own site.

And while I don't have the numbers, apparently the cost of membership jumped as soon as the Justice Dept reissued the regulation changes? Hmmm.